I was (and am still) in the same situation. I managed to go the Rust path, just to realize I don't trust it will be valuable for the very long term (5y+) at this point. It'll be funny to save this comment and come back to it 3 years into the future.
However C++14/17 is getting a ton of new features and a fresh effort to push it towards Rust's innovation. I wouldn't be surprised that if this energy continues, we'll see a lot of Rust in C++.
What is completely certain, that 3 years into the future, if I look at this very comment I'm writing now, C++ will still be as common and valuable. Rust - not sure.
I know I sound like a conservative dinosaur now (but trust me, I'm not), but this kind of thought process you get only after 20 years in the field, and I do apply it only for topics that deserve it (systems programming).
That seems an entirely sensible stance. For me, there's a few other things that make me really want to use from Rust to ease some of the pain points of writing a language that low (error/null handling, destructuring match), so I'll stick with Rust for now. Worst case, I may need to apply my Rust experience to C++ later, but with the new features you are referring to and I keep hearing about, those features seem to be increasingly like what I would be doing in Rust, so there should be a lot of overlap of concepts and idioms by then.
However C++14/17 is getting a ton of new features and a fresh effort to push it towards Rust's innovation. I wouldn't be surprised that if this energy continues, we'll see a lot of Rust in C++.
What is completely certain, that 3 years into the future, if I look at this very comment I'm writing now, C++ will still be as common and valuable. Rust - not sure.
I know I sound like a conservative dinosaur now (but trust me, I'm not), but this kind of thought process you get only after 20 years in the field, and I do apply it only for topics that deserve it (systems programming).